The Black Informant | African American Commentary, News and Community Building

The answer to both questions is an unequivocal ‘no’, but for slightly different reasons.

Rev. Jackson and the commercial news media have always had an awkward relationship, even before his campaigns for President in ’84 and ’88. I believe both sides understand the other has positives to be used in advancing mutually exclusive agendas. However, to accept the popular characterization of Jackson as a self-aggrandizing media hound is a profound minimization of his considerable media skills. Like him or not, the man’s exceptionally prepared when commenting in public — which is why he eats pundits’ lunch.

Like Jackson, Obama’s exceptionally poised when in public. That’s the by-product of thorough preparation on his part. He doesn’t rant and rave; he doesn’t remonstrate or filibuster. But the idea he’s not being scrutinized as closely as other candidates because he’s Black is absurd. There have certainly been attempts to minimize him, i.e.; the spin on his remarks about engaging various heads of state, renegotiating NAFTA, etc., but they aren’t sustained by the public because a) he has shown integrity and capacity for defending his ideas and, b) the ideas themselves are recognized as plausible.

The only folk claiming that media is going easy on Obama are those in Hillary’s camp that still can not accept the fact that their candidate is just plain weak!

In all honesty I would say the press has been going easy on Hillary by not calling her out for being a rather uninspired speaker who has yet to deliver an orginial thought or point of view.

What the public does see is Obama in control of his campaign and SPEAKING FOR HIMSELF, while on the other hand they see Hillary’s camp parading a host of “so-called” democratic big-wigs who are continously taking coded, underhanded swipes at Obama.

“He can be Hillary’s VP”

“He’s only doing well because he is a “black” novelty”

“Bill and Hillary are the TRUE suppoters of black folks”

Even WHITE Americans are being turned off by this crap. They too can see right though this fog and see Hillary and her camp for what they are; A-holes with an agenda just like BUSH and co.

The only folk claiming that media is going easy on Obama are those in Hillary’s camp that still can not accept the fact that their candidate is just plain weak!

Likewise it can also be said that the only folks who believe that the press is too hard on Obama are those that are in his camp.

Now if it was just me saying that the press is going too easy on Obama, sure, slap me around all day. But when you have folks within the media who admittedly support Obama acknowledging that overall they have been going soft on him, I think it would be best for the beast to represent itself rather than trying to do their PR work for them. Yes, the media has been easy on Hillary, but the same thing can be said about their treatment of Obama as well. Getting back to the article, no, I do not think it is due to his color. You can check out some of the links here:

Press Takes a Harder Look at Obama—and Itself

http://www.journalism.org/node/10004

Here’s another…

“Even in the conversations we have as colleagues, there is a sense of trying especially hard not to drink the Kool-Aid,” Mr. Cowan added. “It’s so rapturous, everything around him. All these huge rallies.” (Lee Cowan, the NBC reporter assigned to the campaign) [Link]

I mean, bruh—they are admitting to it.

“But when you have folks within the media who admittedly support Obama acknowledging that overall they have been going soft on him…”

Who, specifically, would this be?

The guy’s got charisma by the boatload, which is what American voters react to, versus issues. And yet the commercial media emphasizes this as a bad thing with Obama, while with other politicians, it’s been celebrated. But the main problem with this damnation-by-faint praise is the commercial news media can, at any time, confront him with those supposedly hard issues to test his mettle before the public.

They won’t. It isn’t because he’s Black and it isn’t because he’s a real-life Magneto. It’s because he can address those issues, directly and in detail, on their merits without seeming to hesitate or contradict himself and the media knows as much. Besides, voters don’t really pay attention to issues, anyway. The media knows that even better.

It’s not like they’ve been soft on HRC either. She’s not as skilled at handling the media.

As you may well kn ow by now I hale from the good city and state of New York. If you thin kthe media is going soft on Obama you need to read teh NY Times everyday. The NYTimes is firmly in Hilary’s camp with the exception of maybe one prerequiste opinion columnist.

Hell for that matter Obama can barely get one of the black politians from NY to support him because they are all in Hillary’s pocket.

Itis time for everyone to admit that Hill’s campiagn is in trouble because they did not plan correctly. Hillary can best be anologized as the #1 favorite in a boxing match with all the odds in her favor at the beginning of the fight. Her problem is she drank her own kool-aid and believed the retoric that she was invincible until that first solid punch hit her chin!

She and her campaign have been wandering around the ring punch drunk for the last 8 rounds of this twelve round fight. Unable to successfully counter-punch Obama she and her corner are willing to throw salt in his face.

Who, specifically, would this be?

You can start with Chris Mathews then work your way with every other journalist who has consistently bloviated about how he is the answer to America’s prayers.

Give it a rest!

The NYTimes has endorsed Hillary, so of course they are going to go easy on her. Look at the other papers that have endorse Obama (this is what makes newspaper endorsements silly b.t.w. because it is a declaration of sorts that you will be biased).

It’s because he can address those issues, directly and in detail, on their merits without seeming to hesitate or contradict himself and the media knows as much

The NAFTA issue is still an ongoing issue. He side-stepped that one big time. And as far as Rezko goes, that is still an ongoing issue as well. If you check some of the papers out there, there are starting to dig deeper with those allegations. Just do a google news search.

Look, the truth is that there is probably not much dirt in his background for the media to run with simply because he has not been in the mix long enough to get that dirty. For what is out there about him, msm has not vetted him on some of his past questionable political moves. Even his hometown paper has admitted to this.

She’s not as skilled at handling the media.

As who? Obama?

Apparently the media saw right through his attempt to sidestep the NAFTA issue:

“Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions,” Obama, looking surprised, told shouting reporters as he fled the room. “We’re running late.”

[Link]

LA Times also took a cynical view of him trying to lecture the press on one occasion for being too soft on Hillary.

Media 101 with Professor Obama

I’m unaware that Chris Matthews actually offered his endorsement for Obama. I watch Hardball regularly; often enough to know Matthews is a Democrat and is very impressed by Obama. But I believe when discussing Obama he’s speaking in his capacity as a member of the fourth estate. It’s possible to objectively point out a candidate’s strengths and stop short of “support”, you know. The rest counts only as conjecture — grist for the pundits’ mill.

He hasn’t “side-stepped” NAFTA, either. The press tried to lull him into a game of ‘gotcha’ after Sen. Clinton’s campaign put out that bogus report about Obama reassuring Canadian officials through back channels. The Resko investigation’s got no legs. That issue too, after the plagiarism accusation and the various ‘Black’ tests he’s been hit with, simply isn’t substantive enough to undermine his campaign. And while you claim, “… he hasn’t been in the mix long enough to get that dirty”, the facts say this is a man who’s been in the public eye for 10 years.

Sometimes a brick is just a brick.

Then there’s this which… well, if this is a man who supports Obama, I’d hate to see an enemy.

He does have to keep his job .

Now follow the trend.

I’ll raise you this

“I’ve been following politics since I was about 5,” said Mr. Matthews. “I’ve never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament.

[Link]

And this–

“I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often. No, seriously. It’s a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment.”

[Link]

And this –

A visibly moved, sentimental Chris Matthews then chimed in with his account of an Obama speech he attended days before: “It was the best speech I’ve ever heard. … And I’m tearing up, and I’m writing down notes, and I’m trying to keep track of this thing. … His heart must’ve been broken last night.”

[Link]

Even the liberal website Media Matters acknowledges his disdain for Clinton

[Link]

Matthews is a commentator, so he is going to be subjective to some degree. But to cloak himself as one who is looking at the issues straight down the middle (especially with this election)….man that is a HUGE stretch.

Off topic–Does anybody know anything about David A. Paterson? What are the folks in NY saying about him?

There’s not an actual endorsement for Obama in any of those quotes. Again… it’s possible to objectively recognize momentum (quote #1) or well-delivered speeches (quotes 2, and 3) without co-signing.

Again… it’s possible to objectively recognize momentum (quote #1) or well-delivered speeches (quotes 2, and 3) without co-signing.

I think his “leg” as well as his refernce to Obama being “the New Testament” already did the co-signing for us.

Since we are going to venture off into possiblities, anything is possible since we are going to pretend Matthews’ comments about Clinton and Obama are objective. The trends in his so-called objectivity towards both candidates speak for itself.

I can just as easily find clips of Chris Matthews fawning over John McCain. They don’t amount to support or a personal endorsement of any kind.

Of course you’d have to actually watch Hardball regularly to know this. I guess pretending you’re correct in light of evidence to the contrary makes you feel better.

I can just as easily find clips of Chris Matthews fawning over John McCain.

I’m sure you could. Matthews always had a soft spot for McCain—just as long as he is “reaching across the aisle.”

I guess pretending you’re correct in light of evidence to the contrary makes you feel better.

LOL!

Ahh yes! When the insults start coming, I know that the last call at the bar has already been made.

Feeling has nothing to do with it, my brutha. I laid out for you examples where MSM media itself has acknowledged its soft approach to Obama. I even pointed to you where liberals have called him (Matthews) out on his coolness to Hillary. Let’s not forget journalism.org findings that concluded that the industry it represents has been going easy on Obama. Yet in typical MIB fashion, you know better.

You’re the one who’s speaking about insults? ROFLMAO! It’s your questions here that insult people’s intelligence as if Obama’s got zero substance and his supporters are too brainwashed/mezmerized/smitten/

etc., to help themselves.

That’s nothing but the re-phrasing of innuendo created by the Clinton campaign and propagated by the commercial news media. Was Bob Johnson being ‘soft’ on Obama when he insinuated the senator was a former drug dealer? How about Rep. Jack Kingston and those talk show hosts who routinely refer to Obama by his entire name as to link him with Muslim extremists? The talking head buzz about Obama’s time spent in Indonesia and a Muslim school? Hack race man Shelby Steele even wrote a book, Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win, that similiarly minimized the Senator and his would-be supporters.

All these petty character attacks were generated and/or perpetuated by the commercial media. You can dig up all the self-proclaimed media watchdogs you’d like and your ‘evidence’ the media’s soft on Obama wouldn’t earn you a cup of coffee at McDonald’s. The assertion’s clearly false, Duane. As is your claim Matthews “admittedly” supports Obama.

It’s your questions here that insult people’s intelligence

Apparently your intelligence hasn’t been insulted.

Was Bob Johnson being ’soft’ on Obama when he insinuated the senator was a former drug dealer?

I didn’t know that Bob Johnson was part of the press. Should we also include the time when Maureen Dowd talked about his ears? That meanie!

How about Rep. Jack Kingston and those talk show hosts who routinely refer to Obama by his entire name as to link him with Muslim extremists?

We are talking about his record going back to Illinois and its effects–and I think you know that.

fyi, Obama was the first one to mention the irony of his name. Yes it is silly to link him to Muslim extremists, but regardless THAT IS THE BRUTHA’S NAME. It’s politics, and everything’s game. Since he is so savvy with the media, I suggest he finds a way to deal with it head on.

As for everything else you mentioned here, If memory serves me correctly, I remember not too long ago you suggesting that folks have been too easy on Bush regarding his handling of the war. I don’t think you had name calling in mind. I thought you were referring to close inspection of his policies and their effects. For Obama we are now reduced to Bob Johnson and Shelby Steele? Come on now!

No. MSM is now starting to vet out his record and hopefully they will continue to do just that. His one trick pony about how he was against the war from the beginning (even though he has voted to finance it along with the rest of his party) is getting quite old.

Hack race man Shelby Steele even wrote a book…

If Steele is in your estimation just a “hack race man”, why mention his book? Apparently most of Obama’s supporters (who btw is currently LEADING) and his own campaign did not pay it much mind.

Just leave this one alone man, and let’s move on.

“I didn’t know that Bob Johnson was part of the press.”

Johnson was speaking, publicly, at a media event. He understood his words were being covered by journalists. When interviewed by reporters the next day, he dissembled, insinuating (this time) Obama was a fraud for avoiding (?) the issue of race. Confronted with the facts a) Obama never addressed the Clinton campaigns attempted race baiting and, b) his record as a civil rights attorney in Illinois, Johnson issued an apology, again orchestrated through the media.

Since when does the commercial news media analyze candidates’ records in detail? They don’t. All they cover is the mud slinging and the posturing between candidates. In the context we’re talking, therefore, Obama’s not getting a pass from anyone in the news media because they’ve been the Clinton campaign’s willing accomplice Day One and have continued carrying her water as she’s become more desperate.

“Yes it is silly to link him to Muslim extremists…”

That’s my point. This race-baiting tactic is coming from Right-wing talk show hosts.

“… why mention [Steele's] book?”

Because he’s a media pundit culpable for his share of the nonsense.

Just leave it alone.